Saturnino wrote:
Poor British people now will have to be careful with what kind of coat they wear, if they are looking properly well, if they have shaved, or they can be shot. License to kill, that's what it is.
It is starting..first the terrorism suspects, then any dissident.
Saturnino from Brazil

I think the UK is just more openly racist then Amerika. But yeah, the loose end explaination works too. :-P

__________________
So pardon me while I burst into flames.
I\'ve had enough of the world and it\'s people\'s mindless games.
So pardon me while I burn, and rise above the flame. Pardon me, pardon me, I\'ll never be the same. -Brandon Boyd
:roll: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.int: :evil: :-...

Talking Points for man mistakenly killed by UK police. The following
points should be emphasised in your reports:

* The dead man is to be referred to as the "suspect" and never the "victim". The intent of these talking points is to cast suspicision onto the dead man and direct any criticism away from the police.
* He was not Caucasian. Preferably he was of Asian or Arab appearance.
* Do not just mention that he was (mistakenly) taken for a suicide bomber, but describe suicide bombings in detail. Especially the aftermath. The intention should be to frighten the reader.
* Remind the reader what would (never say "might") have happened if the suspect "had" been a suicide bomber and the police had "not" shot him. Exaggerate.
* Imply that he had a rucksack of the same colour, size, and design as preferred by real suicide bombers.
* Blame the terrorists for his death and be sympathetic towards the police at all times.
* When describing the man use imagary drawn only from the CCTV pictures of the real bombers. Conjour up the image of a suicide bomber.
* Mention but do not discuss his innocence. Mention it only when necessary.
* Belittle the suspect. Describe him in negative terms as poorly dressed, unshaven, and nervous, but also as a physically intimidating man, burly, agile, fit, dangerous.
* It should not be written that he "failed" to obey police as failure may be construed as meaning that there was some other possible reason for his not stoping than presumed guilt. Avoid passive associations by describing his actions only with action words commonly associated with guilt such as "refused" or "resisted".
* Give conflicting eye-witness accounts of the actual moments of the shooting so as to protect officers.
* One witness thought he saw a "bomb-belt" on the suspect. Quote this witness extensively and as often as possible. Offer no speculation or implication that he may have been mistaken (which of course he was). Use his observation as if it was the sworn testimony of an expert in suicide bombings requiring no further comment.
* The police began following the suspect after he left an apartment in the same block in which another apartment was under surveillance. Use this in such a way as to connect him to the bombers (by describing the apartment block as a "house", for example). Do not speculate that the police may have followed the wrong man.
* Bury the information that the real bombers are still on the loose by mentioning some vague arrests but do not give details as those arrested in the early days of such crises invariably turn out to be innocent.
* Avoid mention of the suspect's family (especially if it turns out he had a wife and kids) but report in depth on how sorry the police are. Use words like "regret" and "tragic".
* Assert that the way in which the suspect "dived or fell to ground" was cause for suspicion in itself. Never connect this to the simultaneous shouting by armed police for every one to "get down" as this may contradict prior assertions that he refused to obey the police.
* Report it as if "the regulations" required the police to shoot him.
* Report that there will be an internal enquiry as if this is a magnanimous police gesture as opposed to mere routine. Report on the process but not the substance of the enquiry, and phrase process descriptions in terms of thoroughness, accountability, and above all sufficiency. Avoid mention of previous police-shootings that have resulted in public enquiries.
* Don't mention the war.
* Generate debate on the circumstances in which the police *should* shoot to kill, and avoid moral or legal issues. Frame the debate in terms of terrorism only and dismiss mistaken-identity arguments as left-wing or liberal.
* If the suspect turns out to be non-muslim you should still continue to question muslim clerics on matters related to terrorism.
* If the suspect does turn out to be muslim connect muslim sympathy or sorrow over his death with radical extremism.
* Use the tiniest flaw in the suspect's character (drugs, fare-dodging, infidelity, etc) as ultimate justification. For example, "If he hadn't have been deaf, he would have heard the police and still be alive today..."
* Utterly groundless speculation is allowed to be presented as fact only when it results in a positive image for HMG.

All other topics, speculation, criticisms of the police, or discussions, are forbidden.

The man was definetly NOT Asian or Middle Eastern looking. His father is white and blue eyed, for Christ sake. he was not Nordic, but could very well be Italian, French or even American. What happened was that police had to show off. They were probably following anyone from that house and because they were not in uniform, Jean ran, as they could be from a gang.

I think the police really thought he could be suspicious and went for the kill. If they had the same attitude in New York, going after unshaven guys in their twenties, they would have to kill half of the riders in the sybway there.

Is it possible he saw too much ? Maybe, who knows. But if you saw the interviews with his family and friends in Brazil, you would not say he was involved with anything suspicious. I doubt it. He died because police received orders to shoot at will at anyone who they randomly thought suspicious, that's all. Could have been an American, or a British as well. This is a taste of what is coming. Strip-search old ladies in the airports, don`t let sick 6 year-olds climb on the planes because they carry an oxygen tank, kill anyone that runs in the wrong place.

What is horrible is the way society is accepting the Nazi behavior of police. What a bunch of sheep going to the slaughter. See below the analysis of an Oxford Law Prof about the complete ilegality of the action.

John Gardner is the Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford, and occasional Visiting Professor at Yale Law School.
Police state: Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police’s Mossad-style execution of a ’suspect’ (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July. This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. (Both risks are pretty tiny, but of the two the risk posed by the police is clearly smaller). Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one’s friends than by one’s enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority.

Here are some other important things to remember in thinking about the police actions of 22 July:

(1) There is no general legal duty to assist the police or to obey police instructions. Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414.

(2) There are special police powers to arrest and search. But there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us.

(3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.

(4) Arguably, the police should be held to higher standards of calm under pressure than the rest of us. Certainly not lower!

(5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count.

(6) It is no defence in law that the killing was authorised by a superior officer. A superior officer who authorises an unlawful killing is an accomplice. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.

(7) The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us.

(8) Some people say: Blame the terrorists, not the police. But blame is not a zero-sum game. The fact that one is responding to faulty actions doesn’t mean one is incapable of being at fault oneself. We may blame Tony Blair for helping to create the conditions in which bombing appeals to people, without subtracting any blame from the bombers. We may also blame the bombers for creating the conditions in which the police act under pressure, without subtracting blame from the police if they overreact. Everyone is responsible for their own faulty actions, never mind the contribution of others. This is the moral position as well as the position in criminal law.

Proposed new anti-terrorist offences: The one that has been variously labelled as ’condoning’ or ’glorifying’ or ’indirectly inciting’ terrorism gives cause for concern. It is already an offence to incite another person to commit an act of terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000 s59). In which respects, we may wonder, is the scope of this offence to be extended? The word ’indirect’ suggests that they mean to catch those who incite the s59 inciter. But under general doctrines of English criminal law it is already an offence to incite the s59 inciter. So one suspects some other extension of the existing offence is being cooked up. Is the plan to criminalise the mere defence or endorsement of a terrorist act? If so we are in for trouble. Terrorism in English law is defined to cover all modes of political violence, however trifling. Are academics and commentators no longer to be permitted to defend any political violence? Is Ted Honderich’s Violence for Equality, or Peter Singer’s Democracy and Disobedience, to be put on the banned books list? The only thing protecting these books at the moment is that, in the eyes of the law, an argued endorsement is not an incitement. The thought that the government may be thinking of changing this should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who still has a spine (damn few).

Lord Hoffman in A v Home Secretary [2005] 2 WLR 87: ’The real threat to the life of the nation ... comes not from terrorism but from laws like these.’ Quite right. Some extra risk of being blown up by fanatics on the way to work is one of the prices we pay for living in a free society. Let’s make sure we keep it that way.

I am heading down the path that this was indeed a bunch of idiots with guns, pumped up on a mission to save the world.

I know first hand of the stupidity of many who are trusted to bear arms in my country of Oz.

Showing off to girls in Hotels their fire arms and badges. Endless bragging due to the fact they are on AMPHETAMINES during night shift.

Our armed forces and Police Services are made up of many good people. However, it is a mistake to believe in their infallability as they are also full of idiots of a certain mentality who's only qualifacation is the ability to do as they're told.

All the good coppers leave after a few years. The corruption and idiocy gets to anyone with the ability to think.

If he is indeed the victim of a gigantic cockup then I must have sympathy for this man...by what grace of God does one recieve to be caught up in this?

There are some points that still have me suspicious though.

FROM BBC link:

Quote:

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot eight times at Stockwell on Friday after fleeing three undercover officers who had mistaken him for a suicide bomber.

Why did he run? Why? He would surely be aware of the hightened tension at this time. Did the Police identify themselves? This would be fairly standard. Why did he run? That he mistook them for "robbers"? Dont think so.

Quote:

Mr Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder after apparently refusing police demands to stop.

Normal practice if you believe the man is a suicide bomber but why chase? If that is your belief...why chase? You shoot. Period.

Quote:

The officers had followed him in the belief he may be a suicide bomber, but it later transpired the electrician had no connection to terrorism.

This is the crux of the matter which sits like a splinter in my mind.

The authorities are on HIGH ALERT! Police both uniformed and plain clothes are EVERYWHERE! They have strict and well thought out protocols for persuing and detaining suspects. This sounds like "keystone cops". As if a first year Bobby was waving his arms about shouting..."hello, hello...any chance you'll care for a chat old boy?"

To get to the point where you sincerely beleive a suspect is a "suicide bomber" and could possibly kill many innocent people is a "black & white" point in the time/space continuum.

If I sincerely believed this mans behaviour (which if you believe reports was VERY suspect) warrented your brain to believe he was an IMMEDIATE danger...you simply pull your gun and shoot. You EMPTY your magazine and possibly pop in another and empty that too.

Lets not fuck around here. There are NO shades of grey in a matter such as this. I would have shot him immediately and had NO regrets. A trained Police Officer who, after 50+ dead, would have no other choice. Not to mention the "failed" attempts just a few days before.

Based on the media reports (always a worry), the man contributed heavily to his own death. His behaviour during a time of extreme tension was reckless.

There is something to this story which simply does not add up.

Cant people in the area follow up the witnesses independantly?

In the end. Perhaps it is just a distraction.

Quote:

At a press conference held in London on Wednesday, the family's lawyer Gareth Peirce said there were "101" questions to be asked about the facts, and "1001" about the policies underlying the "shoot-to-kill" tactics used by police.

I agree there are 101 questions about the facts.

As for the shoot to kill policy? There are no questions to answer. There is only ONE policy available once you get to the point where you sincerely believe a person may be about to strike a number 8 detonator in public.

The questions must center on how the Officers came to their decision that he was an immediate threat to the public.

I'm sure you've got some, or all, of this information already but after following the news for most of the day I've picked up on one contradiction:

RELATED:

Explosions In London

London Police Kill Man at Subway Station

Several eye-witnesses describe seeing an Asian man running away from 3 or 4
plain-clothed police officers, who then pushed him down (one report says
they sat on him, too) and then shot him 4, 5, or 6 times (depending on the
report, one claims also it was as many as 10).

Now a senior police office said that it's unlikely that they were plain-clothed police officers... the fire arms branch of the police usually have black uniforms with flack jackets... but none of the eye-witness accounts have described seeing this?

Secret Services perhaps?

Also, every eye-witness account has mentioned that the man was not carrying
anything. No bag, no weapons, nothing.

Two of the reports I've heard describe the man as wearing a black cap, cargo/combat pants and a heavy jacket or fleece top... ok, a heavy jacket
might mean he was concealing something, but a fleece top? Not really suspicious? Still they shoot him dead.

Shooting 5 shots, they were making sure he was dead.

But why kill him, especially if it appears that he wasn't carrying anything?

Surely the police would want to get information out of him?

The eyewitness accounts make it sound like they were on top of him and had
him restrained anyway. Was it really necessary to shoot him?

Also, another story is circulating about a black bag that was on an underground train leaving from stockwell station about half an hour before the shooting and this bag was apparently giving out smoke.

What scares me is the relativization of the value of human life. The principle of innocent until proven guilty of course lets a lot of people off the hook, but is the price we pay for the better good.

Life is risky. Anyone can go out in the street with a knife and kill someone. Or he can use a car. But we know those risks are much less problematic than trying to give power to people to decide who lives and dies, based on racial profile or anything else.

With this whole situation, life is not an ABSOLUTE value anymore. End of civilization as we know it.